Working towards a transition to open access
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)
Dear All
I thought you might be interested in a piece we have shared on working towards a transition to open access: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/working-towards-a-transition-to-open-access
The piece is intended to contribute positively and constructively to the discussion about how a transition to open access can be achieved.
Feedback welcome.
Gemma
Gemma Hersh
VP, Open Science
Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS
M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.h...@elsevier.com
Twitter: @gemmahersh
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.
Toby....@oecd.org
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Glenn Hampson
Hi Toby,
This is a fun analogy---thanks. I would argue (in the academic sense of the word), though, that it actually applies to lots of stakeholders who are “stuck” in the current system of scholarly communication---libraries, universities, societies, publishers. It’s impossible for anyone to find their way out of this forest without working together. And far from being inactive, I think everyone is approaching this challenge and contributing to solutions the best they can from their own vantage points. Gemma’s “regional gold” idea is fascinating and maybe it’s workable with more collaboration---or maybe it’s just a starting point for discussion (what would it need to work better?).
Which is why OSI is so important---thanks for the segue---and why it’s so important that Elsevier and others have been part of this effort. Take a look at the recommendations set forward and let me know what you think. Getting from point a to point b may not involve much waiting at all. Indeed, I’m excited that this is the year we can all start making some significant steps forward together---tbd.
Cheers,
Glenn
Robert Kiley
Robert Kiley
Glenn Hampson
Hi Robert,
I don’t know---Gemma? And just to be clear, I’m not endorsing this particular idea FWIW---I’m just saying that it’s interesting and original and one of many ideas we should discuss with regard to thinking through pros and cons, collaborations, ways to make ideas work better, or reasons why some ideas should never see the light of day. This is a unique forum---we’re going to try using it more this year and next (this listserv might not be the best place for this kind of increased back and forth, granted, since about a third of OSI participants want to see less email, so please stay tuned for the new communication tools I promised, maybe starting next week).
Best,
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
Mike Taylor
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Glenn Hampson
Hi Mike,
I don’t want to step on Gemma’s answer here, but you’ve noted an issue that came up in several OSI workgroups this year (as well as at OSI2016)---confusion over terminology. Getting on the same page will be an important step in moving forward and there will be folks working on this and creating proposals for you and others to consider.
This said, I think it’s important to note that getting on the same page is not the same as all agreeing that BOAI’s definitions must remain sacred. Several workgroups at OSI2016 and OSI2017 endorsed the viewpoint that open exists on a spectrum and that it might be helpful to stop thinking not in terms of what is and isn’t open, and consider instead that various efforts exist on an open scale----in part to recognize more efforts, in part to make it easier for more people and institutions to participate in open (to the best of their abilities), in part to be able to stop bickering about various orthodoxies (CC-BY, etc.), and in part to encourage a little competition in the system---to be able to say that this product is a 9.9 and that one is a 6.8 (or whatever) and let customers vote with their wallets.
I suppose one could come up with a green spectrum argument as well, but the point is that the whole gold/green/orange/etc. approach has everyone confused, especially the people we want to get excited about open, so more clarity all around is essential and what pretty much everyone at OSI2017 agreed on.
I don’t have any answers here—just sayin’
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
rob.johnson
Rob Johnson
Director
Research Consulting
Follow us on Twitter @rschconsulting
M: +44(0)779 511 7737
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)
Hi Robert
There is an assumption in your response that this model would be supported by APCs (which is a perfectly reasonable assumption, of course). However region-specific OA would be a new model not yet tried out, so would need careful working through with seriously interested parties – including on what costs need to be covered, for what and by who. We have always been clear that APCs pay to broadcast research, globally, free of charge to the end user while subscriptions pay to access or receive the rest of the world’s articles published under the subscription model. If gold OA were to be limited to Europe, this would not fall neatly into either the APC or subscription buckets, so a new approach could be crafted.
Best wishes
Gemma
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: 28 September 2017 19:37
To: 'Robert Kiley' <r.k...@wellcome.ac.uk>
Cc: Toby....@oecd.org; Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW) <g.h...@elsevier.com>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Working towards a transition to open access
*** External email: use caution ***
Robert Kiley
Gemma
Thanks – but I’m still confused.
Is the model you suggesting – and I recognise that you say that this needs further thought with “seriously interested parties” – something like this:
1. A researcher based somewhere in Europe – and has access to funds to meet OA costs – pays a publication fee. [You are clear that this is NOT an APC]
2. This article would then be made free to read for researchers in Europe at the time of publication. Access would be granted/denied based on IP address (or equivalent)
3. This fee would (presumably) not include re-use rights (like CCBY) or deposit in a subject repository (like Europe PMC) – else this would mean that immediate access was available to all.
4. After a period of time, a version of the article – presumably the author manuscript version – would be made available to the rest of the world.
5. The publication fee, charged to the researcher (or his/her funder/institution) would, presumably, be lower than the APC
Is this approximately right?
If so, my immediate instinct is that this will make an already complex system, even more complicated. And, whatever colour got ascribed to this method publishing – it would need to be made clear that this is NOT open access.
R
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)
Hi Mike
Thank you for your positive response.
What marks out gold OA from green OA is the business model: green is supported by the subscription model, gold is not. Depending on the version of the subscription article being shared, access may indeed be immediate (in the case of preprints, for example) or may not (in the case of accepted manuscripts, for example). Publishers provide green OA too, for example through CHORUS. I understand you may see this differently.
You are right that one of the suggestions we make for region-specific OA does not fall neatly into existing definitions. The point however is to think constructively and creatively – and dare I say it, outside of the box - about how we move open access forward.
Best wishes
Gemma
From: Mike Taylor [mailto:mi...@indexdata.com]
Sent: 28 September 2017 23:15
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Robert Kiley <r.k...@wellcome.ac.uk>; Toby....@oecd.org; Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW) <g.h...@elsevier.com>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Working towards a transition to open access
*** External email: use caution ***
There is much to like here for an OA advocate. I particularly like, and agree with, the observation that "the primary reason to transition to gold open access should not be to save money ... but that it would be better for research and scholarship."
-- Mike.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW)
Hi Robert
Your outline is certainly one way this could work, but there will no doubt be others/alternative views. We haven’t addressed elements such as how access would be granted, reuse rights etc. This would all be up for discussion if there was appetite to do so.
This particular idea has attracted a lot of attention, which is great, but I would point out that there are other things we say in the piece too, for example regarding principles behind SCOAP3 and how those might be useful.
Gemma
From: Robert Kiley [mailto:r.k...@wellcome.ac.uk]
Sent: 29 September 2017 08:55
To: Hersh, Gemma (ELS-LOW) <g.h...@elsevier.com>; Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Toby....@oecd.org; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Working towards a transition to open access
*** External email: use caution ***
Gemma
Thanks – but I’m still confused.
Is the model you suggesting – and I recognise that you say that this needs further thought with “seriously interested parties” – something like this:
- A researcher based somewhere in Europe – and has access to funds to meet OA costs – pays a publication fee. [You are clear that this is NOT an APC]
- This article would then be made free to read for researchers in Europe at the time of publication. Access would be granted/denied based on IP address (or equivalent)
- This fee would (presumably) not include re-use rights (like CCBY) or deposit in a subject repository (like Europe PMC) – else this would mean that immediate access was available to all.
- After a period of time, a version of the article – presumably the author manuscript version – would be made available to the rest of the world.
Martin G. Hicks
I am having a little trouble in deciding whether the whole thing about region-specific OA is a joke, or whether the accountants are just being creative again….
Anyway, I agree with Robert – NOT OA
Certainly not compatible with the Europe Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (RISE) report: Europe’s future: Open innovation, Open Science, Open to the world (March 2017) https://www.rri-tools.eu/-/the-rise-report-europe-s-future-open-innovation-open-science-open-to-the-world-
“[First,] our actions must always reflect European values of openness and diversity, if we are serious about using European research and innovation for something greater than our own gain. [And second,] we have to embrace change – try new things and be willing to take risks – if we want European research and innovation to remain at the forefront of modernity and economic growth.” Carlos Moedas
So it won’t fly!
Reminds me of the following article:
“Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?” By Stephen Buranyi in The Guardian, Tuesday 27 June 2017
Some passages from the article:
"if you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science"
“there is a moral imperative to re-consider how scientific data are judged and disseminated”
A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.
Martin Hicks
Glenn Hampson
Hi Rob, Everyone,
Pasted below my signature is the open spectrum framework proposal from OSI2016 and the amended proposal from OSI2017. At its core, this framework is called DART, which stands for discoverability, accessibility, reusability, and transparency. The 2017 group recommended adding “sustainability” as an important additional metric. Here’s a graphic showing the “spectrum” for the first four of these (I haven’t created one yet with the new sustainability measure included):
One of the benefits of adopting this approach---please see the reports for the fine grain details because this is a bit general---would be to stop talking about green this and gold that and just focus on seeing where scholarship exists on this spectrum by institution, country, discipline, etc., and then seeing (hopefully more clearly) where we need to focus to do more and do better. The OSI2017 Standards Workgroup, in fact, went so far as to propose that OSI adopt this approach:
Proposed: The Opens Scholarship Initiative envisions a scholarly community where all parts of the research lifecycle are openly available. In order to achieve this vision, OSI adopts the following principles in order to evaluate policy proposals and actions: research products must be made more Discoverable, Accessible, Reusable, Transparent, and Sustainably supported. Policies that increase openness among one or more of these dimensions, while having no net decrease on any other, are aligned with the mission and purpose of OSI delegates and member institutions.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
OSI2016 Report from the “What is Open?” Workgroup
VERSION OF RECORD INFO
Published by Mason Publishing, online at http://journals.gmu.edu/osi. Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, Volume 1, 2016. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13021/G8XK5R. ©2016 OSI2016 What is Open Workgroup. This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
The scholarly community’s current definition of “open” captures only some of the attributes of openness that exist across different publishing models and content types. Open is not an end in itself, but a means for achieving the most effective dissemination of scholarship and research. We suggest that the different attributes of open exist along a broad spectrum and propose an alternative way of describing and evaluating openness based on four attributes: discoverable, accessible, reusable, and transparent. These four attributes of openness, taken together, form the draft “DART Framework for Open Access.” This framework can be applied to both research artifacts as well as research processes. We welcome input from the broader scholarly community about this framework.
OSI2016 workgroup question
There is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of the lack of consensus?
Initial conclusions
Our workgroup began by considering whether we should focus narrowly on open access as it relates to scholarly publishing, or whether we should take an expansive look at open scholarship writ large across all disciplines, research products and processes. In the end, we chose to view open scholarship in the broadest possible context.
A range of outputs can be made open: articles, journals,[1] monographs, new forms of research, educational resources, data, materials, software code, and where appropriate, hardware. Our group noted that for journal literature, from the perspective of the user, it is the relative openness of an article that is of prime importance. It was also agreed that various versions of the journal article are effectively distinct outputs when we consider openness—for example, the submitted version, accepted version, and final published version can all have different degrees of openness.
Research processes and practices can also be open. Among these processes are research methodologies, peer review, disclosure of funding sources, disclosure of negative results, other research in progress, and so on.
Our workgroup agreed that open is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, and identified three overarching goals shared by all stakeholders that can be utilized for openness:
· Better research
· More impactful research
· Maximizing value for money.
We noted that open could benefit research in a number of ways aligned to these goals, including, but not limited to:
· More value for research expenditures: Openness does not necessarily drive down costs, but it may increase the value delivered by the investment in research.
· Faster visibility: Users have faster access to research products that are open, which may boost discovery.
· Reproducibility: For openness to serve reproducibility (an important aspect of ensuring verifiable results), the findings, data, methods, materials, and software (the version used, as well as the hardware) must all be described and available.
Describing the range of open
Our workgroup struggled over the question of whether open is a single, absolute state (i.e., something is open only if it meets a specific set of qualities), or whether it could and should be more accurately described as a series of conditions that exist along a spectrum.
We recognized during this deliberation that there are previously articulated definitions of open, including the Budapest definition which defines open access to journal articles as free availability with the functional equivalent of a Creative Commons (CC-BY) license.[2] We agreed, however, that in addition to these definitions there is a broad spectrum of open attributes not currently articulated, and further, that open could be reasonably viewed as not an end in itself but as a means for achieving better, more impactful research and for maximizing the value of our research expenditures.
Our conclusion was that openness has a number of dimensions and can be conceptualized as a spectrum, rather than at a single defined point. Our group identified a baseline set of attributes that constitute what the scholarly community currently views as being the minimum requirements for “open” (and without which a research output or process is effectively closed)—namely, discoverable, and freely accessible at the point of use. Beyond this baseline, there are attributes that may be more nuanced, and where degrees of openness may occur. Open, therefore, is in many respects a range or scale of less open to more open.
Our group sought to identify points on the openness spectrum without attributing a particular value to these points, in order to avoid designations that would deem some forms of open to be better than others. We leave it to individual users applying the spectrum to determine respective value, both because it addresses numerous content types, disciplines and contexts, and because the views of different stakeholders and disciplines vary regarding what constitutes optimum solutions in moral and practical terms.
Our workgroup then identified four dimensions that have a particular bearing on openness: Discoverability, Accessibility, Reusability, and Transparency (DART). These four DART dimensions exist along a spectrum, rather than as binary values (e.g., yes/no, on/off).
The DART Framework
Dimension | Attributes include | Description | |||
Discoverable | · Indexed by search engines · Sufficient, good quality discovery metadata · Links · Persistent unique identifiers · Explicit rights statements · Open and widely used standards (for all of the above attributes) | This may be the most fundamental baseline condition of open (meaning that if an object is not discoverable, it is not open). However, there is a wide range here, including open with bad metadata or links and no or faulty identifiers. | |||
Accessible | · Free (in terms of cost) to all users at point of use, in perpetuity · Downloadable (binary) · Machine-readable (binary) · Timeliness of availability (spectrum) | Generally drives whether we currently consider something to be open, although many variations exist (taking into account embargoes and other conditions). | |||
Reusable | · Usable and reusable (including commercial uses) · Able to be further disseminated · Modifiable | Openness is advanced by having fewer restrictions on reuse, dissemination and modification. | |||
Transparent | · Peer review · Impact metrics · Transparency in the research process (based on the Center for Open Science TOP Guidelines), including data transparency (metadata and level of availability), and software (including version and operating system/hardware) · Research design and analytical methods (plus software and versions), including citation standards, pre-registration of studies and of analysis, and replication · Author transparency (funding source, affiliations, roles, other disclosures such as conflict of interest) | Serves the research lifecycle, given that outputs of research become inputs. Some of the factors that affect transparency include the software used, inclusion of data, the transparency of the peer review process and analytical methods, and more. |
The DART framework was developed over two days of discussions at the OSI meeting in April 2016. We present it now to the community with the aim of expanding the conversations about openness and to help better identify where scholarly artifacts and practices exist along the spectrum of open.
One application of the DART Framework might be to try to identify and assess open spectrums by institution, publication, or discipline, which will allow administrators to design precise, targeted corrections as warranted to improve open access—something that cannot be done with existing methodologies. Another application might be to use this framework to help improve openness across a particular metric (to be determined), such as increasing the number of viewers or users over time.
We welcome comments and input about this framework in order to validate it with the wider community and ensure it reflects thinking and practices from a broad range of stakeholders.
Next steps
The DART Framework provides identifiable end-points and discrete, quantifiable attributes that we hope will be helpful in terms of describing levels of openness. It enables users to focus efforts in particular areas and allows them to compare practices across institutions, publications and disciplines.
We are sharing this draft conceptual framework with the broader community in order to validate this approach. Once we have received feedback, we intend to further assess the value and relevance of the DART Framework.
Ultimately, we agreed that more openness—that is, moving along the spectrum toward becoming more open on one, some or all of the attributes of openness—is a goal that our entire stakeholder community supports in principle, and that could well have many positive repercussions for research and society. Working together to conceptualize openness as a spectrum with a range of attributes is an important addition to our conversations about openness and our efforts toward this common goal.
AUTHORS
Rick Anderson, Seth Denbo, Diane Graves, Susan Haigh, Steven Hill, Martin Kalfatovic, Roy Kaufman, Catherine Murray-Rust, Kathleen Shearer, Dick Wilder, Alicia Wise. This document reflects the combined input of these authors (listed here in alphabetical order by last name) as well as contributions from other OSI2016 delegates. The findings and recommendations expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of individual authors, nor of their agencies, trustees, officers, or staff
OSI2016 “What is Open?” Workgroup
· Rick Anderson, Associate Dean of Libraries at the University of Utah and President-Elect, Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP)
· Seth Denbo, Director of Scholarly Communication & Digital Initiatives, American
Historical Association
· Diane Graves, Assistant Vice President for Information Resources and University
Librarian, Trinity University and Board member, EDUCAUSE
· Susan Haigh, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Research Libraries
· Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy, Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
· Martin Kalfatovic, Associate Director, Digital Program and Initiatives, Smithsonian
Libraries
· Roy Kaufman, Managing Director, New Ventures, Copyright Clearance Center
· Catherine Murray-Rust, Dean of Libraries & Vice Provost for Academic
Effectiveness, Georgia Tech
· Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories
· Dick Wilder, Associate General Counsel, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
· Alicia Wise, Director of Access and Policy, Elsevier
Notes:
[1] Openness of content within a particular journal often varies, as different articles within a journal may comprise different degrees of openness. The group agreed that the degree of openness of individual articles can be distinct, and that this is a significant factor, given that scholars use articles rather than journals. (We noted that the ‘How open is it?’ open access spectrum tool, developed by SPARC, PLOS, and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), is focused on the components that make journals, not articles, more open. As of June 14, 2016: http://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hoii_guide_rev4_web.pdf.)
[2] See the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), as of June 14, 2016: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/; the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003), as of June 14, 2016: http://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration; the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003), as of June 14, 2016: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm; and The Bouchout Declaration for Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management (2014) , as of June 14, 2016: http://www.bouchoutdeclaration.org.
OSI2017 Report from the Standards Workgroup
(Draft version, publication pending)
Authors
Michelle Gluck, George Washington University
Adrian K. Ho, University of Kentucky Libraries, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7417-7373
Martin R. Kalfatovic, Smithsonian Libraries, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4563-4627
David Mellor, Center for Open Science, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3125-5888
Louise Page, PLOS
Brianna Schofield, Authors Alliance
Emma Wilson, Royal Society of Chemistry, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6362-3406
This document reflects the combined input of these authors (listed here in alphabetical order by last name) as well as contributions from other OSI 2017 delegates. The findings and recommendations expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of individual authors, nor of their agencies, trustees, officers, or staff.
Background
Standards improve efficiency by reducing the number of times in which one is expected to alter their normal workflow. Researchers who use standard practices in dissemination quickly learn how to navigate through the process. Journals, editors, and publishers who use standard practices quickly become more efficient at decision making, evaluation, and then dissemination.
However, in order to prevent the stifling of innovation, standards creation requires planning for iterative improvement. Furthermore, there is no “one size fits all” that can reasonably accommodate diverse and decentralized communities. Scholarship, both the process of systematic knowledge creation in the sciences and humanities, and the process of knowledge dissemination, both relies on current evidence and is highly decentralized, which presents particular challenges for the creation and adoption of standards within this community. Organizations such as the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) exist to address this particular challenge and will perhaps be required to in order to achieve the goals presented below.
The purpose of this working group and its report is to identify existing relevant standards, evaluate areas of overlap or perhaps conflict, which can be used to foster increased collaboration, and areas where relevant standards do not yet exist, which can be used to focus future effort.
Open Scholarship: Idea Generation to Dissemination
As a threshold matter, the Standards Workgroup approached the concept of “open scholarship” as much broader than a focus on open access to scholarly articles alone. Instead, the Workgroup conceptualized open scholarship as applying transparency to all applicable aspects of the research lifecycle: idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, early dissemination, peer review, contributorship, funding sources, and dissemination of research products such as journal articles, research data, and software codes. Though some stages of the research lifecycle are not applicable to all fields of scholarship, increasing transparency into any relevant products will engender similar benefits to those disciplines as transparency does to every other discipline. More openness is necessary at all stages, with appropriate protection for sensitive data and with the associated costs fairly shared among stakeholders in the interest of mutual benefits.
Making all aspects of the scholarly workflow more transparent is increasingly necessary in order to foster trust and collaboration in the process of knowledge creation and sharing. Society demands and deserves accessible insight into the foundation of knowledge because of scholarship’s central role in policy-making, among other areas. Creating a more transparent scholarly ecosystem requires rethinking how each individual and institution is rewarded and recognized for their roles in knowledge creation and dissemination, so that transparency becomes a key metric of success and accountability. Furthermore, it requires careful attention in order to design a system that is sustainable, just, and responsive to new evidence.
Need to Align Standards
Competing standards threaten to derail their benefit. Just as learning how to use a new piece of software takes time, competing standards threaten to confuse the wider community. However, as stated above, overly rigid standards stifle improvement, and so in many cases the best practice is to standardise a framework of policies and actions so that each stakeholder can quickly ascertain their meaning. In this sense, the wider community can “speak the same language” while permitting necessary diversity in actual policy.
A reasonable example of this need are the four Data Sharing Policy Types used by Springer Nature and the relevant data transparency policies presented in the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. While similarly structured, the four specific “types” or “levels” described are slightly unaligned. While realignment may be difficult, it could provide immediate benefit to a wider community.
Possible areas of contention in such an alignment could be the use of specific terminology. “Type” does not convey value, rigor, or potential challenges with a particular policy, whereas the term “Level” does. Depending on one’s point of view, it could be either beneficial or detrimental to convey such values in policy types. Perhaps simple labels that describe the essence of each type or level would alleviate this tension (e.g. Encourage, Disclose, Require, and Verify), though that is slightly more challenging to convey than a simple numbering system.
Proposed OSI Guiding Principles
In order for OSI to continue to make progress and generate action items that advance its mission, while still being able to function with a consensus model among stakeholders who have very diverse interests, we must agree on a set of principles to use when making future decisions. The “What is Open” Workgroup[1] from OSI 2016 laid out most of the salient principles and we propose that OSI endorse it as a collective. When future proposals are considered, this common set of principles will guide OSI and enable its members to judge the potential effect of any action. In brief, those principles highlight that openness can be considered as a spectrum across four dimensions: Discoverability, Accessibility, Reusability, and Transparency (DART). Any proposal can be assessed on its (estimated) impact on the openness of the practices along the research lifecycle, e.g., idea generation, knowledge creation, interpretation and analysis, dissemination, and evaluation.
We propose that one additional dimension be considered: Sustainability. While not directly related to open scholarship, financial sustainability is necessary for any proposal to be adopted or for any adopted proposal to be implemented for medium- and long-term use. Since persistence of a research output is an unmentioned but essential element for later discoverability, accessibility, and reusability, adding Sustainability to the DART principles (hereinafter referred to as “DARTS”) aligns with the underlying principles proposed in 2016.
The principle of Sustainability requires that proposals consider the method by which content will be hosted and curated and services be supported. In some cases, proposals could include sustainability plans that rely on existing funding sources (e.g., government, foundation, or NGO support) but without incurring an increase in such reliance (or ideally with a decrease in such reliance). Alternatively, proposed projects could be sustainable if a reasonable business plan be created that increases any dimension of DART.
This proposal needs to be assessed by key stakeholders present in OSI. As of now, there is no decision-making framework adopted by OSI. As such, the natural course of action is to either 1) propose that the following motion be considered “adopted” only after affirmation from every delegate who chooses to participate in a vote conducted by the planning committee or 2) the proposal be shelved until a governing and decision-making framework is adopted.
Proposed: The Opens Scholarship Initiative envisions a scholarly community where all parts of the research lifecycle are openly available. In order to achieve this vision, OSI adopts the following principles in order to evaluate policy proposals and actions: research products must be made more Discoverable, Accessible, Reusable, Transparent, and Sustainably supported. Policies that increase openness among one or more of these dimensions, while having no net decrease on any other, are aligned with the mission and purpose of OSI delegates and member institutions.
Making DARTS a Reality
One way of approaching this challenge, and what we’re proposing herein, is to encourage widespread adoption of the DARTS framework. Connecting the entire research workflow will help to ensure that the body of work, from idea dissemination, data collection, interpretation, dissemination, and evaluation increase along every dimension of DARTS.
The Open Science Framework (OSF https://osf.io) is designed both for those scholarly activities and for the DARTS dimensions. As a key to its utility in connecting a preserving a complex research workflow, it’s open source code and APIs allow for connections to other research tools. The fact that it is open source and its endowment for 50 years of maintenance address important sustainability questions. Its public content is discoverable through the SHARE initiative (https://share.osf.io/), which not only makes work on the OSF Discoverable and Accessible, but also makes research outputs from other repositories connected.
Utilization of this and related tools will help make a truly open scholarly community happen. This will take additional education, marketing, and coordination between players.
Open Standards Matrix
The Standards Workgroup envisions that a fruitful path forward to operationalizing this proposal is to build upon a draft “open standards matrix” initiated by the Workgroup in 2017. Still in the nascent stage, the matrix aims to identify potential standards and best practices that can increase openness. (It is to be evaluated in accordance with the DARTS principles.) The matrix lists stakeholders across columns (i.e., funders, researchers, universities, libraries, societies, and publishers) and stages of the research lifecycle across rows (i.e., idea generation, knowledge creation, interpretation and analysis, dissemination, and evaluation). See the complete matrix here.
Standards, Norms, or Best Practices to Promote Openness in Scholarship
| Funders | Researchers | Universities | Libraries | Societies | Publishers | |||||||
Idea generation | Registries. | Open data. Registries. |
|
| Networking & ECR creation. Topic & discipline specific standards. Registries. |
| |||||||
Knowledge creation |
|
| Institutional recognition/rewards for collaboration and/or sharing, Increase transparency |
|
|
| |||||||
Interpretation & analysis |
| Use of tools to address bias and motivated reasoning. |
|
|
| Versions; Open licensing to enable reuse and innovation. Open peer review. Best practices proposed by COPDESS http://www.copdess.org/copdess-suggested-author-instructions-and-best-practices-for-journals/ | |||||||
Dissemination | Open Science linked to ROI & societal impact; Funder expectation of open access | Pre-prints | Data repositories & archiving; Open Access; Recognition of researchers’ roles (contributorship); Open Science linked to ROI and societal impact | Repositories connected through open APIs. Taxonomies. Workshops and training for dissemination
|
| SSO, SEO, DOI, portable submission, device agnostic, PDF, JATS, OAI-PMH, machine read, common standards for interoperability, taxonomies, mineable. | |||||||
Evaluation | Standards and metrics that align w/ scientific ideals | Post-pub peer review | Hiring & promotion based on open practices | Surface metrics created by funders & societies |
| Surface metrics created by funders and societies. Data citation. |
The Standards Workgroup began to identify potential “standards,” “norms,” and “best practices” to populate the cells of the matrix.[2] For example, to increase openness, funders may require Creative Commons licensing of works at the dissemination stage and publishers may make research outputs machine-readable. The Standards Workgroup expects that with additional time and input from stakeholders with a wider range of expertise, this open standards matrix may prove a useful starting point to indicate areas where individual stakeholders can contribute to increasing the openness of research products.
One area that requires additional development is the creation of standards in knowledge creation. In particular, researchers, societies, and publishers can work together to start to address current needs, such as those that relate to open data.
Open Data
Mentioned above, both Springer Nature’s Data Policy Types and the TOP Guidelines lay out modular data sharing policies and provide some examples and resources for each level. There is still need, however, to increase standardization of the operalizational of each of those types/levels.
Standardised data disclosure statements would help researchers quickly select the statement that applies to them, and aid in later meta-analytic work in evaluating openness.
Standardised exceptions to data sharing mandates would have similar benefits (though would likely still require free response, “other reasons”). Reasonable ethical constraints, the use of intellectual property concerns may or may not be a reasonable exception to some funders and publishers, and inability to share massive data sets could all be considered.
The meaning of peer review is still not well defined when it comes to any object that is not a traditional paper. Setting standards or options for such review practices is needed. As a suggestion, various tiers of data peer review could be used: verification of the data’s existence, verification that reasonable meta-data or a “data dictionary” are included, basic assessment that the data set is complete, and finally the ability to computationally reproduce the results are different tiers that could be applied
Other members of the Open Scholarship Initiative should address the missing standards presented in this gap analysis and highlight known gaps as they are identified.
Summary and Next Steps
The use of standardized best practices for making scholarship more Discoverable, Accessible, Reusable, Transparent, and Sustainable will help to make the vision of OSI a reality. The following actions, described above in detail, are the recommended next steps toward this process:
- Adopt a unifying policy goal in order to evaluate future proposals at OSI.
- Coordinate alignment between closely related open data policy frameworks.
- Facilitate the creation of best practices and specific policy frameworks for detailed actions relating to open data.
- Solicit help in identifying existing standards within the Open Standards Matrix so that gaps represent truly actionable items.
- Coordinate with stakeholders who are working on similar standards alignment within the open science community, for example the Data policy standardisation and implementation interest group at the Research Data Alliance
- Advocate for tools that make every part of the research workflow more connected, efficient, and preserved, such as the Open Science Framework.
Mike Taylor
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Rick Anderson
> We are reaching a point where significant proportions of some European countries articles
> are gold OA, and we need to get better at evaluating the benefits of this.
One of the problems with doing cost/benefit analysis in this context is the fact that as difficult as the benefits may be to quantify, the costs are even harder. That may sound backwards – after all, the costs can be calculated in dollars/pounds/euros/whatever. But unfortunately, what can’t be calculated is the opportunity cost of shifting money from one project (subsidizing research) to another (making articles freely available). If you start talking about redirecting somewhere between 1% and 2% of disbursements by major funders like the U.S. Department of Energy or the Wellcome Trust, you’re getting into nine-figure dollar amounts – that represents significant amounts of real research that is not being done, in order to make reports based on previously-funded research freely available.
This scenario represents both real and significant benefits and real and significant costs. So will any other scenario, including sticking with the current system. No matter what we decide to do, we’d better be able (and willing) to look in a careful and hardheaded way at both the benefits AND the costs of whatever scenarios we consider.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of "rob.johnson" <rob.j...@research-consulting.com>
Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1:14 AM
To: The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Working towards a transition to open access
Dear all,
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:15 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Robert Kiley <r.k...@wellcome.ac.uk>; Toby....@oecd.org; g.h...@elsevier.com; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Working towards a transition to open access
There is much to like here for an OA advocate. I particularly like, and agree with, the observation that "the primary reason to transition to gold open access should not be to save money ... but that it would be better for research and scholarship."
However ... I worry about the misuse of the terms Green OA _and_ OA itself in this article.
You define Green OA as "making a version of the subscription article widely available after a time delay or embargo period", but this is simply not what the term means. What marks out Gold from Green is that the former is provided by a publisher (often though not necessarily in exchange for a fee) while the latter is provided by the author or her institution. There is no delay inherent in Green OA.
Gold OA does have advantages over Green, not least the simplicity of there being only one version of the published article out there; but immediate access is not one of them.
And then this: "one possible first step for Europe to explore would be to enable European articles to be available gold open access within Europe and green open access outside of Europe." There is no such thing as "gold open access within Europe". The term "open access" means and has always meant (going right back to the BOAI) "free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers". Something is OA to the world or not OA at all.
We will all make better progress if we use terms correctly.
-- Mike.
On 28 September 2017 at 19:36, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi Robert,
I don’t know---Gemma? And just to be clear, I’m not endorsing this particular idea FWIW---I’m just saying that it’s interesting and original and one of many ideas we should discuss with regard to thinking through pros and cons, collaborations, ways to make ideas work better, or reasons why some ideas should never see the light of day. This is a unique forum---we’re going to try using it more this year and next (this listserv might not be the best place for this kind of increased back and forth, granted, since about a third of OSI participants want to see less email, so please stay tuned for the new communication tools I promised, maybe starting next week).
Best,
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)