Mapping open knowledge institutions: an exploratory analysis of Australian universities [PeerJ]

Abstract:  While the movement for open research has gained momentum in recent years, there remain concerns about the broader commitment to openness in knowledge production and dissemination. Increasingly, universities are under pressure to transform themselves to engage with the wider community and to be more inclusive. Open knowledge institutions (OKIs) provide a framework that encourages universities to act with the principles of openness at their centre; not only should universities embrace digital open access (OA), but also lead actions in cultivating diversity, equity, transparency and positive changes in society. This leads to questions of whether we can evaluate the progress of OKIs and what are potential indicators for OKIs. As an exploratory study, this article reports on the collection and analysis of a list of potential OKI indicators. Data for these indicators are gathered for 43 Australian universities. The indicators provide high-dimensional and complex signals about university performances. They show evidence of large disparities in characteristics such as Indigenous employment and gender equity, and a preference for repository-mediated OA across Australian universities. We demonstrate use of the OKI evaluation framework to categorise these indicators into three platforms of diversity, communication and coordination. The analysis provides new insights into the Australian open knowledge landscape and ways of mapping different paths of OKIs.

Consultation with Indigenous Peoples on the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science

“As a part of a series of thematic consultations for building a global consensus on Open Science, UNESCO organized an online meeting on January 15 to take stock of Indigenous peoples‘ perspective on Open Science.  

In view of developing a standard-setting instrument on Open Science, UNESCO is leading an inclusive, transparent and consultative process. In this process, inclusiveness of diverse knowledge systems and knowledge holders is essential, and the first draft of the Recommendation is based on the broad inputs provided by stakeholders from all regions and groups.

Considering the great importance given to the creation of a productive relationship between Open Science and Indigenous Knowledge Systems, the consultation with Indigenous Peoples brought together 120 participants from 50 countries, including indigenous scholars and academics, members of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), members of different initiatives such as the Forest Peoples Programme, the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, and the drafting committee of the CARE principles for Indigenous Data Governance.    …”

Opening Access, Closing the Knowledge Gap? Analysing GC No. 25 on the Right to Science and Its Implications for the Global Science System in the Digital Age eBook (2021) / 0044-2348 | Nomos eLibrary

Abstract:  The Corona pandemic as never before shows the advantages of Open Science and Open Access (OA), understood as the unrestricted access to research data, software and publications over the internet. It might accelerate the long-predicted “access revolution” in the academic publishing system towards a system in which scientific publications are freely available for readers over the internet. This paradigm shift, for which the “flipping” of this journal is but one of many examples, is underway, with major research funding organisations at the national and international levels massively supporting it. The call for OA has now also been taken up by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in its recent General Comment (GC) No. 25 explicitly asks states to promote OA. Following the line of argument of the OA movement, the Committee finds that OA is beneficial to democracy, scientific progress and furthermore a tool to bridge the “knowledge gap”. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the GC and its implications for the global science system in the digital age. It argues that the great merit of the GC lies in highlighting that “benefitting” from science includes access to science as such and not only to its material outcomes. This underscores the independent meaning of the right to science which so far was primarily seen as an enabler for other social rights. However, when it comes to OA, the GC has problematic flaws. It simply assumes that OA is beneficial to the right to science, overlooking that the OA model which is likely to become the global standard risks to benefit the already privileged, namely researchers and publishers of wealthy institutions in the Global North, further sidelining those at the margins. Rather than narrowing existing gaps, it risks to further deepen them. In order to remain meaningful in the face of the fundamental criticism it faces, human rights law needs to address systemic issues and inequalities in the science system and beyond.

 

Read, Hot & Digitized: Visualizing Wikipedia’s Gender Gap | TexLibris

“However, Wikipedia has a long-standing problem of gender imbalance both in terms of article content and editor demographics. Only 18% of content across Wikimedia platforms are about women. The gaps on content covering non-binary and transgender individuals are even starker: less than 1% of editors identify as trans, and less than 1% of biographies cover trans or nonbinary individuals. When gender is combined with other factors, such as race, nationality, or ethnicity, the numbers get even lower. This gender inequity has long been covered in the scholarly literature via editor surveys and analysis of article content (Hill and Shaw, 2013; Graells-Garrido, Lalmas, and Menczer, 2015; Bear and Collier, 2016; Wagner, Graells-Garrido, Garcia, and Menczer, 2016; Ford and Wajcman, 2017). To visualize these inequalities in nearly real time, the Humaniki tool was developed….”

Home | on-merrit

“ON-MERRIT is a 30 month project funded by the European Commission to investigate how and if open and responsible research practices could worsen existing inequalities.

Our multidisciplinary team uses qualitative and computational methods in order to examine advantages and disadvantages in Open Science and Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI). ON-MERRIT aims at eventually suggesting a set of evidence-based recommendations for science policies, indicators and incentives, which could address and mitigate cumulative (dis)advantages, so called Matthew effects.
The project acronym stands for Observing and Negating Matthew Effects in Responsible Research & Innovation Transition….”

To boldly grow: five new journals shaped by Open Science – The Official PLOS Blog

“We are extremely excited to announce the imminent launch of five new journals, our first new launches in fourteen years. These new journals are unified in addressing global health and environmental challenges and are rooted in the full values of Open Science:

PLOS Climate
PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
PLOS Water
PLOS Digital Health
PLOS Global Public Health…”

Equity concerns persist over open-access publishing | Nature Index

“An analysis of more than 182,000 scholars in the United States has found that the researchers who publish in OA journals with APCs – which can cost several thousand dollars – are more likely to be male, at an advanced career stage, have access to federal funding, and/or be employed by prestigious universities.”

Where is the ‘Justice’ in Open Education?

“In a third and final webinar in its series on exploring aspects of Open Pedagogy, the New England Board of Higher Education is honored to welcome Jasmine Roberts as she leads us in a discussion on the importance of centering social justice in this work.

Open education frameworks address high-cost course materials, but with an increase in the adoption of open educational materials, conversations about inclusive teaching, social justice, and anti-racism pedagogical practices need to be at the center of open practices. Roberts’ talk will address the urgency of adopting social justice practices in open education and strategies on how to do this….”

Where is the ‘Justice’ in Open Education?

“In a third and final webinar in its series on exploring aspects of Open Pedagogy, the New England Board of Higher Education is honored to welcome Jasmine Roberts as she leads us in a discussion on the importance of centering social justice in this work.

Open education frameworks address high-cost course materials, but with an increase in the adoption of open educational materials, conversations about inclusive teaching, social justice, and anti-racism pedagogical practices need to be at the center of open practices. Roberts’ talk will address the urgency of adopting social justice practices in open education and strategies on how to do this….”

Ascending into an Open Future | American Libraries Magazine

“The modern academic library helps users to not just access and store information but to think through the implications of that information, Cottom observed in her keynote. “Access in and of itself is not a solution to unequal returns and experiences,” she said. She recommends The Promise of Access: Technology, Inequality, and the Political Economy of Hope (MIT Press, April) and “Information Has Value: The Political Economy of Information Capitalism” as two texts that underscore this view.

“Within the university, we rarely talk about the rights of our stakeholders to information, not just access,” Cottom said. “What would it look like for an academic community to develop a code of data rights?” She proposed that this code should be people-centered and would guide not just data privacy but also areas such as data autonomy….”