Open Access in Ireland: A case-study

Guest - October 29, 2014 in OKF Ireland, Open Access

Following last week’s Open Access Week blog series, we continue our celebration of community efforts in this field. Today we give the microphone to Dr. Salua Nassabay from Open Knowledge Ireland in a great account from Ireland, originally posted on the Open Knowledge Ireland blog.

In Ireland, awareness of OA has increased within the research community nationally, particularly since institutional repositories have been built in each Irish university. Advocacy programmes and funder mandates (IRCSET, SFI, HEA) have had a positive effect; but there is still some way to go before the majority of Irish researchers will automatically deposit their papers in their local OA repository.

Brief Story

In summer 2004, the Irish Research eLibrary (IReL) was launched, giving online access to a wide range of key research journals. The National Principles on Open Access Policy Statement were launched on Oct 23rd 2012 at the Digital Repository of Ireland Conference by Sean Sherlock, Minister of State, Department of Enterprise, Jobs & Innovation and Department of Education & Skills with responsibility for Research & Innovation. The policy consists of a ‘Green way’ mandate and encouragement to publish in ’Gold’ OA journals. It aligns with the European policy for Horizon 2020. OA on national level is managed by the National Steering Committee on OA Policy, see table 3.

A Committee of Irish research organisations is working in partnership to coordinate activities and to combine expertise at a national level to promote unrestricted, online access to outputs which result from research that is wholly or partially funded by the State:

National Principles on Open Access Policy Statement

Definition of OA

Reaffirm: freedom of researchers; increase visibility and access; support international interoperability, link to teaching and learning, and open innovation.

Defining Research Outputs:

include peer-reviewed publications, research data and other research artefacts which
feed the research process”.

General Principle (1): all researchers to have deposit rights for an AO repository.

Deposit: post-print/publisher version and metadata; peer-reviewed journal articles and
conference publication. Others where possible; at time of acceptance for publication; in
compliance with national metadata standards.

General Principle (2):Release: immediate for meta-data; respect publisher copyright, licensing and embargo (not
normally exceeding 6months/12months).

Green route policy – not exclusive

Suitable repositories

Research data linked to publications.

High-level principles:

Infrastructure and sustainability: depositing once, harvesting, interoperability and long-term preservation.

Advocacy and coordination: mechanisms for and monitoring of implementation, awareness raising and engagement for ALL.

Exploiting OA and implementation: preparing metadata and national value-added metrics.

Table 1. National Principles on Open Access Policy Statement. https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/communications/pdfs/PatriciaClarke2014.pdf and http://openaccess.thehealthwell.info/sites/default/files/documents/NationalPrinciplesonOAPolicyStatement.pdf

There are seven universities in Ireland http://www.hea.ie/en/about-hea). These Irish universities received government funding to build institutional repositories in each Irish university and to develop a federated harvesting and discovery service via a national portal. It is intended that this collaboration will be expanded to embrace all Irish research institutions in the future. OA repositories are currently available in all Irish universities and in a number of other higher education institutions and government agencies:

Higher Education

Government Agency

Institutional repositories

Subject repository

Dublin Business School; Dublin City University; Dublin Institute of Technology; Dundalk Institte of Technology; Mary Immaculate College; National University of Ireland Galway; National University of Ireland, Maynooth; Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland; Trinity College Dublin; University College Cork; University College Dublin, University of Limerick; Waterford Intitute of Technology

Irish Virtual Research Library & Archive, UCD

Health Service Executive Lenus; All-Ireland electronic Health Library (AieHL); Marine Institute; Teagasc

Table 2. Currently available repositories in Ireland

AO Ireland’s statistics show more than 58,859 OA publications in 13 repositories, distributed as can be seen in the figures 1 and 2.

oa_figure1Figure 1. Publications in repositories.From rian.ie (date: 16/9/2014). http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Some samples of Irish OA journals are:

- Crossings: Electronic Journal of Art and Technology: http://crossings.tcd.ie;

-Economic and Social Review: http://www.esr.ie;

-Journal of the Society for Musicology in Ireland: http://www.music.ucc.ie/jsmi/index.php/jsmi;

-Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland: http://www.ssisi.ie;

-Minerva: an Internet Journal of Philosophy: http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie//;

-The Surgeon: Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland: http://www.researchgate.net/journal/1479-666X_The_surgeon_journal_of_the_Royal_Colleges_of_Surgeons_of_Edinburgh_and_Ireland;

-Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine: http://www.ijpm.ie/1fmul3lci60?a=1&p=24612705&t=21297075.

oa_figure2Figure 2. Publications by document type. From rian.ie (date: 16/9/2014). http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Institutional OA policies:

Name

URL

OA mandatory

OA Infrastructure

Health Research Board (HRB) - Funders

Webside: http://www.hrb.ie

Policy:http://www.hrb.ie/research-strategy-funding/policies-and-guidelines/policies/open-access/

Yes

No

Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) – Funders

Webside: http://www.sfi.ie

Policy: http://www.sfi.ie/funding/grant-policies/open-access-availability-of-published-research-policy.html

Yes

No

Higher Education Authority (HEA) – Funders

Webside: http://www.hea.ie

Policy: http://www.hea.ie/en/policy/research/open-access-scientific-information

No

No

Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM) – Funders

Webside: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie

Policy:http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/research/DAFMOpenAccessPolicy.pdf

Yes effective 2013

No

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Funders

Webside: http://www.epa.ie/

Policy:http://www.epa.ie/footer/accessibility/infopolicy/#.VBlPa8llwjg

Repository: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/#.VBmTVMllwjg

Yes

Yes

Marine Institute (MI) – Funders

Webside: http://www.marine.ie/Home/

Policy: http://oar.marine.ie/help/policy.html

Repository: http://oar.marine.ie

No

Yes

Irish Research Council (IRC) – Funders

Webside: http://www.research.ie

Policy: http://www.research.ie/aboutus/open-access

*Yes

No

Teagasc – Funders

Webside: http://www.teagasc.ie

Policy: http://t-stor.teagasc.ie/help/t-stor-faq.html#faqtopic2

Repository: http://t-stor.teagasc.ie

*No

Yes

Institute of Public Health in Ireland (IPH) – Funders

Webside: http://www.publichealth.ie

Policy: http://www.thehealthwell.info/node/628334?&content=resource&member=749069&catalogue=Policies,%20Strategies%20&%20Action%20plans,Policy&collection=none&tokens_complete=true

Yes

No

Irish Universities Association (IUA) – Researchers

Representative body for Ireland’s seven universities:

http://www.iua.ie

https://www.tcd.ie/research_innovation/assets/TCD%20Open%20Access%20Policy.pdf

http://www.ucd.ie

Yes effective 2010

Yes

Health Service Executive (HSE) – Researchers

Webside: http://www.hse.ie/eng/

Policy:http://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/library/Open_Access/statement.pdf

Repository: http://www.lenus.ie/hse/

Yes effective 2013

Yes

Institutes of Technology Ireland (IOTI) – Researchers

Webside: http://www.ioti.ie

-

No

Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) – Researchers

Webside: http://dit.ie

Policy: http://arrow.dit.ie/mandate.html

Repository: http://arrow.dit.ie

*Yes

Yes

Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) – Researchers

Webside: http://www.rcsi.ie

Policy: http://epubs.rcsi.ie/policies.html

Repository: http://epubs.rcsi.ie

*No

Yes

Consortium of National and University Libraries (CONUL) – Library and Repository

Webside: http://www.conul.ie

Repository: http://rian.ie/en

-

Yes

IUA Librarians’ Group (IUALG) - Library and Repository

Webside: http://www.iua.ie

Repository: http://rian.ie/en

-

Yes

Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI) - Library and Repository

Webside and Repository: http://www.dri.ie

DRI Position Statement on Open Access for Data: http://dri.ie/sites/default/files/files/dri-position-statement-on-open-access-for-data-2014.pdf

Yes

effective 2014

Yes

EdepositIreland - Library and Repository

Webside: http://www.tcd.ie/Library/edepositireland/

Policy: https://www.tcd.ie/research_innovation/assets/TCD%20Open%20Access%20Policy.pdf

Repository: http://edepositireland.ie

Yes

Yes

*IRC: Some exceptions like books. See policy.

*Teagasc: Material in the repository is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Share-Alike License

*DIT: Material that is to be commercialised, or which can be regarded as confidential, or the publication of which would infringe a legal commitment of the Institute and/or the author, is exempt from inclusion in the repository.

*RCSI: Material in the repository is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Share-Alike License

Table 3. Institutional OA Policies in Ireland

Funder OA policies:

Major research funders in Ireland

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/research/DAFMOpenAccessPolicy.pdf

IRCHSS (Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences): No Open Access policies as yet.

Enterprise Ireland: No Open Access policies as yet.

IRCSET (Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology): OA Mandate from May 1st 2008:http://roarmap.eprints.org/63/

HEA (Higher Education Authority): OA Mandate from June 30th 2009: http://roarmap.eprints.org/95/

Marine Institute: No Open Access policies as yet

HRB (Health Research Board): OA Recommendations, Policy: http://roarmap.eprints.org/76/

SFI (Science Foundation Ireland): OA Mandate from February 1st 2009: http://roarmap.eprints.org/115/

Table 4. Open Access funders in Ireland.

oa_figure3Figure 3. Public sources of funds for Open Access. From rian.ie (date: 16/9/2014), http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Infrastructural support for OA:

Open Access organisations and groups

Open Access projects and initiatives. The Open Access to Irish Research Project. Associated National Initiatives

RIAN Steering Group. IUA (Irish Universities Association) Librarian’s Group (Coordinating body). RIAN is the outcome of a project to build online open access to institutional repositories in all seven Irish universities and to harvest their content to the national portal.

NDLR (National Digital Learning Repository):http://www.ndlr.ie

National Steering Group on Open Access Policy. See Table 3

RISE Group (Research Information Systems Exchange)

Irish Open Access Repositories Support Project Working Group. ReSupIE: http://www.irel-open.ie/moodle/

Repository Network Ireland is a newly formed group of Repository managers, librarians and information: http://rni.wikispaces.com

Digital Repository Ireland DRI is a trusted national repository for Ireland’s humanities and social sciences data @dri_ireland

Table 5. Open Access infrastructural support.

Challenges and ongoing developments

Ireland already has considerable expertise in developing Open Access to publicly funded research, aligned with international policies and initiatives, and is now seeking to strengthen its approach to support international developments on Open Access led by the European Commission, Science Europe and other international agencies.

The greatest challenge is the increasing pressure faced by publishers in a fast-changing environment.

Conclusions

The launch of Ireland’s national Open Access policy has put Ireland ahead of many European partners. Irish research organisations are particularly successful in the following areas of research: Information and Communication Technologies, Health and Food, Agriculture, and Biotechnology.

Links

- Repository Network Ireland / http://rni.wikispaces.com

-Open Access Scholarly Publishers / http://oaspa.org/blog/

- OpenDoar – Directory of Repositories / http://www.opendoar.org

- OpenAire – Open Access Infrastructure for research in Europe / https://www.openaire.eu

- Repositories Support Ireland / http://www.resupie.ie/moodle/

-UCD Library News / http://ucdoa.blogspot.ie

- Trinity’s Open Access News / http://trinity-openaccess.blogspot.ie

- RIAN / http://rian.ie/en/stats/overview

Contact person: Dr. Salua Nassabay salua.nassabay@openknowledge.ie

https://www.openknowledge.ie; twitter: @OKFirl

CC-BY-SA-NC

Wild Heart Turning White: Georg Trakl and Cocaine

Adam Green - October 29, 2014 in baudelaire, cocaine, drugs, first world war, georg trakl, karl kraus, poetry, snow, ww1

To mark the 100th anniversary of the death by cocaine overdose of Austrian lyric poet Georg Trakl, Richard Millington explores the role of the drug in the Trakl's life and works.

Catch us if you Can: The #OpenData party moves to Calabar!

olubabayemi - October 28, 2014 in #OpenData Party, Events, Journalist, NGOs, Nigeria, Obudu Mountain Resort, Open Data, Open Data in Calabar

So what’s the fuss about this #Opendata party in the South South of Nigeria – It will be held in one of the cleanest city in AfricaCalabar, and will be hosted in a state that has the most comforting tourist attraction in West Africa – the Obudu Mountain Resort! If you think there is another like it in the region, please comment below ;) and one other thing about Calabar is the attributes to their women, and just for clarification – Calabar remains the capital city of Cross River State.

Right on time at the popular Mirage Hotel on October 15, 2014 was the Open data party that had 15 participants from different NGOs, citizens and this time we had some government officials – thus making it interesting. Whenever you have these three groups locked on a round table – questions like: why didn’t you make the data available, why didn’t  you reply our FOIA, didn’t we make funding available for you to monitor, what happened to all the international aid you get, all come up, and as a facilitator – you are lost!

Break out session at the Open Data Party in Calabar

Break out session at the Open Data Party in Calabar

With my experience teaching data with NGOs, journalists and citizens, it is still clear that few of the practitioners know where even the little data available is hidden online. “It is appalling that we all here don’t know where the federal government budget is being published” affirmed Onoche Mokwunye. I get this answer often in all my sessions, which makes us conclude at times that the simple skill of finding data (secondary) itself and what their interest was in data, remains important.

In trying to figure out what kind of data they were interested in 40% of the participants were interested in budget data of the country; 30% were interested in contract data  (in essence, the issue of money, and how it’s been used is important), while the remaining 30% was shared amongst election data, environmental data, infrastructure data, and transport data (which seems not to be available). Going forward did they really know where to find this data? KNOW! Well, it will be important to state that the Nigerian government has recently focused on some open data initiatives, even though it is not as if these portals make data available in machine readable format.

See what kind of data our participants were interested in

See what kind of data our participants were interested in

One may think, since we wouldn’t know where to find, or how to get the data, analyzing data might be a great challenge, of course NO! This group had great knowledge of diving into excel spreadsheets – maybe I knew only one way of handling some task before, now I learnt two more ways – that was the most interesting part of this data party! So what else, how do we present this datasets using several visualizations and infographic. “I have seen several colourful visualizations (online) that people in our communities cannot relate with, as such we still need to break it down in the language they will understand (offline) – maybe that’s an added task for us” explained Benny from AfterSchool Peer Mentoring Project

When our Open Data party ends within 8 hours, participants are at times heartbroken! “Are we going to continue tomorrow, I seem to be an information and skill overload in a short time” – mentioned Ndoma Mayor in a phone call with me. Truly, does our party end in 8hours? What happens to the” party” behind Open data – we always rock the club, after all, we are in Calabar, where the female become goddess at night! And if you want to know where our next open data party will be happening: most definitely – Abuja, No thanks to Connected Development [CODE] and Indigo Trust UK

flattr this!

Let’s imagine a creative format for Open Access

Guest - October 26, 2014 in OKF France, Open Access, Open Access Week

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world. It is written by Celya Gruson-Daniel from Open Knowledge France and reports from “Open Access Xsprint”, a creative workshop held on October 20 in the biohackerspace La Paillasse in Paris – as announced here.

More and more information is available online about Open Access. However it’s difficult to process all this content when one is a busy PhD Student or researcher. Moreover, people already informed and convinced are often the main spectators. The question thus becomes : How to spread the world about Open Access to a large audience ? (researchers, students but also people who are not directly concerned). With the HackYourPhD community, we have been developing initiatives to invent new creative formats and to raise curiosity and/or interest about Open Access. Open Access Week was a perfect occasion to propose workshops to experiment with those kinds of formats.

An Open Access XSprint at La Paillasse

During the Open Access Week, HackYourPhD with Sharelex design a creative workshop called the Open Access Xsprint (X standing for media). The evening was held on October 20 in the biohackerspace La Paillasse in Paris with the financial support of a Generation Open Grant (Right to Research Coalition)

The main objective was to produce appealing guidelines about the legal aspects and issues of Open Access through innovative formats such as livesketching, or comics. HackYourPhD has been working with Sharelex on this topic for several months. Sharelex aims at providing access to the law to everyone with the use of a collaborative workshop and forum. A first content has been produced in French and was used during the Open Access XSprint.

One evening to invent creative formats about Open Access

These sessions brings together illustrators, graphic designers, students, researchers. After a short introduction to get to know each other, the group discussed about the meaning of Open Access and its definition. First Livesketching and illustration emerged.

B0eU8AFIUAA-cig

In a second time, two groups were composed. One group worked on the different meaning of Open Access with a focus on the Creative Commons licences.

B0aXUjdCMAA8g8u

The other group discussed about the development of the different Open Access models and their evolution (Green Open Access, 100% Gold Open Access, hybrid Journal, Diamond, Platinum). The importance of Evaluation was raised. It appears to be one of the brakes in the Open Access transition.

After an open buffet, each group presented their work. A future project was proposed. It will consist of personalizing a scientific article and inventing its different “”life””. An ingenious way to present the different Open Access Models.

B0eVPZSIIAEH0Sl

Explore also our storify “Open Access XSprint”

Next Step: Improvisation Theatre and Open Access

To conclude the Open Access Week, another event will be organized on October 24 in a science center (Espace Pierre Gilles de Gennes) with HackYourPhD and Sharelex, and the financial support of Couperin/FOSTER.

This event aims at exploring new format to communicate about Open Access. An improvisation theatral company will participate to this event. The presentations of different speakers about Open Access will be interspersed with short improvisation. The main topic of this evening will be the stereotypes or false ideas about Open Access. Bring an entertaining and original view is a way to discuss about Open Access for a large public, and maybe a starter to help them to become curious and to continue exploring this crucial topic for researchers and all citizen.

Licence Creative Commons Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Nature-branded journal goes Open Access-only: Can we celebrate already?

Guest - October 26, 2014 in OKF Brazil, Open Access, Open Access Week

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world. It is written by Miguel Said from Open Knowledge Brazil and is a translated version of the original that can be found the Brazilian Open Science Working Group's blog.

Open access 2(1)Nature Publishing Group reported recently that in October, its Nature Communications journal will become open access only: all articles published after this date will be available for reading and re-using, free of charge (by default they will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution license, allowing virtually every type of use). Nature Communications was a hybrid journal, publishing articles with the conventional, proprietary model, or as open access if the author paid a fee; but now it will be exclusively open access. The publishing group that owns Science recently also revealed an open access only journal, Science Advances – but with a default CC-NC license, which prevents commercial usages.

So we made it: the greatest bastions of traditional scientific publishing are clearly signaling support for open access. Can we pop the champagne already?

This announcement obviously has positive aspects: for example, lives can be saved in poor countries where doctors may have access to the most up-to-date scientific information – information that was previously behind a paywall, unaffordable for most of the Global South. Papers published under open access also tend to achieve more visibility, and that can benefit the research in countries like Brazil, where I live.

The overall picture, however, is more complex than it seems at first sight. In both cases, Nature and Science adopt a specific model of open access: the so-called "gold model", where publication in journals is usually subject to a fee paid by authors of approved manuscripts (the article processing charge, or APC). In this model, access to articles is thus open to readers and users, but access to the publication space is closed, in a sense, being only available to the authors who can afford the fee. In the case of Nature Communications, the APC is $5000, certainly among the highest in any journal (in 2010, the largest recorded APC was US $ 3900 – according to the abstract of this article… which I cannot read, as it is behind a paywall).

This amounts to two months of the net salary of a professor in state universities in Brazil (those in private universities would have to work even longer, as their pay is generally lower). Who is up for spending 15%+ of their annual income to publish a single article? Nature reported that it will waive the fee for researchers from a list of countries (which does not include Brazil, China, India, Pakistan and Libya, among others), and for researchers from elsewhere on a "case by case" basis – but they did not provide any further objective information about this policy. (I suspect it is better not to count on the generosity of a publisher that charges us $32 to read a single article, or $18 for a single piece of correspondence [!] from its journals.)

On the other hand, the global trend seems to be that the institutions with which researchers are affiliated (the universities where they work, or the scientific foundations that fund their research) bear part of these charges, partly because of the value these institutions attach to publishing in high-impact journals. In Brazil, for example, FAPESP (one of the largest research foundations in Latin America) provides a specific line of funding to cover these fees, and also considers them as eligible expenses for project grants and scholarships. As it happens, however, the funds available for this kind of support are limited, and in general they are not awarded automatically; in the example of FAPESP, researchers compete heavily for funding, and one of the main evaluation criteria is – as in so many situations in academic bureaucracy today – the researcher's past publication record:

Analysis criteria [...] a) Applicant's Academic Record a.1) Quality and regularity of scientific and / or technological production. Important elements for this analysis are: list of publications in journals with selective editorial policy; books or book chapters [...]

Because of this reason, the payment of APCs by institutions has a good chance of feeding the so called "cumulative advantage" feedback loop in which researchers that are already publishing in major journals get more money and more chances to publish, while the underfunded remain that way.

The advancement of open access via the gold model also involves another risk: the proliferation of predatory publishers. They are the ones that make open access publishing (with payment by authors or institutions) a business where profit is maximized through the drastic reduction of quality standards in peer review – or even the virtual elimination of any review: if you pay, you are published. The risk is that on the one hand, predatory publishing can thrive because it satisfies the productivist demands imposed on researchers (whose careers are continually judged under the light of the publish or perish motto); and on the other hand, that with the gold model the act of publishing is turned into a commodity (to be sold to researchers), marketable under high profit rates - even without the intellectual property-based monopoly that was key to the economic power mustered by traditional scientific publishing houses. In this case, the use of a logic that treats scientific articles strictly as commodities results in pollution and degradation of humankind's body of scientific knowledge, as predatory publishers are fundamentally interested in maximizing profits: the quality of articles is irrelevant, or only a secondary factor.

Naturally, I do not mean to imply that Nature has become a predatory publisher; but one should not ignore that there is a risk of a slow corruption of the review process (in order to make publishing more profitable), particularly among those publishing houses that are "serious" but do not have as much market power as Nature. And, as we mentioned, on top of that is the risk of proliferation of bogus journals, in which peer review is a mere facade. In the latter case, unfortunately this is not a hypothetical risk: the shady "business model" of predatory publishing has already been put in place in hundreds of journals.

Are there no alternatives to this commodified, market-oriented logic currently in play in scientific publishing? Will this logic (and its serious disadvantages) be always dominant, regardless if the journal is "proprietary" or open access? Well, not necessarily: even within the gold model, there are promising initiatives that do not adhere strictly to this logic – that is the case of the Public Library of Science (PLOS), an open access publishing house that charges for publication, but works as a nonprofit organization; because of that, it has no reason to eliminate quality criteria in the selection of articles in order to obtain more profits from APCs. Perhaps this helps explain the fact that PLOS has a broader and more transparent fee waiver policy for poor researchers (or poor countries) than the one offered by Nature. And finally, it is worth noting that the gold model is not the only open access model: the main alternative is the "green model", based on institutional repositories. This model involves a number of challenges regarding coordination and funding, but it also tends not to follow a strictly market-oriented logic, and to be more responsive to the interests of the academic community. The green model is hardly a substitute for the gold one (even because it is not designed to cover the costs of peer review), but it is important that we join efforts to strengthen it and avoid a situation where the gold model becomes the only way for scientists and scholars in general to release their work under open access.

(My comments here are directly related to my PhD thesis on commons and commodification, where these issues are explored in a bit more detail – especially in the Introduction and in Chapter 4, pp. 17-20 and 272-88; unfortunately, it's only available in Portuguese as of now. This post was born out of discussions in the Brazilian Open Science Working Group's mailing list; thanks to Ewout ter Haar for his help with the text.)

Open Access Week in Nepal

Kshitiz Khanal - October 25, 2014 in OKF Nepal, Open Access, Open Access Week

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world.

Open Access Week was celebrated for the first time in Nepal for the opening 2 days: October 20, 21. The event, which was led by newly founded Open Access Nepal, and supported by EIFL and R2RC, featured a series of workshops, presentation, and peer to peer discussions and training by country leaders in Open Access, Open Knowledge, and Open Data including a 3 hour workshop on Open Science and Collaborative Research by Open Knowledge Nepal on the second day.

Open Access Nepal is a student led initiative that mostly includes students of MBBS. Most of the audience of Open Access Week celebrations here, hence, included med students, but engineering students, management students, librarians, professionals, and academics were also well represented. Participants discussed open access developments in Nepal and their roles in promoting and advancing open access.

EIFL and Right to Research Coalition provided financial support for the Open Access Week in Nepal. EIFL Open Access Program Manager Iryna Kuchma attended the conference as speaker and facilitator of workshops.

Skærmbillede 2014-10-23 kl. 16.37.26

Open Knowledge Nepal hosted an interactive session on Open Science and Collaborative Research on the second day of two. The session we led by Kshitiz Khanal, Team Leader of Open Access / Open Science for Open Knowledge Nepal with support from Iryna Kuchma and Nikesh Balami, Team Leader of Open Government Data. About 8-10 Open Access experts of the country were present inside the hall to assist participants. The session began a half an hour before lunch where participants were first asked to brainstorm till lunch was over about what they think Open Science and Collaborative Research is, and the challenges relevant to Open Access that they have faced / might face in their Research endeavors. The participants were seated in round tables in groups of 7-8 persons, making a total of 5 groups.

After lunch, one team member from each group took turns in the front to present the summary of their brain-storming in colored chart papers. Participants came up with near exact definitions and reflected the troubles researchers in the country have been facing regarding Open Access. As we can expect of industrious students, some groups impressed the session hosts and experts with interesting graphical illustrations.

Skærmbillede 2014-10-23 kl. 16.39.09

Skærmbillede 2014-10-23 kl. 16.39.39

Iryna followed the presentations by her presentation where she introduced the concept, principles, and examples related to Open Science. Kshitiz followed Iryna with his presentation on Collaborative Research.

Skærmbillede 2014-10-23 kl. 16.40.14

Session on Collaborative Research featured industry – academia collaborations facilitated by government. Collaborative Research needs more attention in Nepal as World Bank’s data of Nepal shows that total R&D investment is only equivalent to 0.3% of total GDP. Lambert Toolkit, created by the Intellectual Property Office of the UK, was also discussed. The toolkit provides agreement samples for industry – university collaborations, multi–party consortiums and few decision guides for such collaborations. The session also introduced version control and discussed simple web based tools for Collaborative Research like Google Docs, Etherpads, Dropbox, Evernote, Skype etc.

On the same day, Open Nepal also hosted a workshop about open data, and a session on Open Access Button was hosted by the organizers. Sessions in the previous day included sessions that enlightened the audience about Introduction to Open Access, Open Access Repositories, and growing Open Access initiatives all over the world.

This event dedicated to Open Access in Nepal was well received in the Open Communities of Nepal which has mostly concerned themselves with Open Data, Open Knowledge, and Open Source Software. A new set of audience became aware of the philosophy of Open. This author believes the event was a success story.

Skærmbillede 2014-10-23 kl. 16.41.08

Uncovering the true cost of access

Jenny Molloy - October 24, 2014 in Open Access, Open Access Week, Open Science

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world.

Large amounts of public money are spent on obtaining access to published research results, amounting to billions of dollars per year.

Large amounts of public money are spent on obtaining access to published research results, amounting to billions of dollars per year.

Despite the huge amounts of public money spent on allowing researchers to access the published results of taxpayer funded research [1], there is little fiscal transparency in the scholarly publishing market and frequent examples of secrecy, where companies or brokers insert non-disclosure clauses into contracts so the cost of subscriptions remains opaque. This prevents objective analysis of the market, prevents libraries negotiating effectively with publishers for fair prices and makes it hard to ascertain the economic consequences of open access policies.

This matters. Open access campaigners are striving to make research results openly and freely available to everyone in a sustainable and cost effective manner. Without detailed data on current subscription costs for closed content and the emerging cost of article processing charges (APCs) [2], it is very difficult to accurately model and plan this transition.

Library budgets are stretched and their role within institutions is changing, making high journal costs an increasing concern.

Library budgets are stretched and their role within institutions is changing, making high journal costs an increasing concern.

Specifically, there are concerns that in the intervening period, publishers may be benefiting from ‘double dipping’ – offering hybrid products which incur APCs for open access articles and subscription fees for all other content which could result in higher overall income. In a market where the profit margins of several major publishers run at 35-40% and they exert monopolistic control over a large proportion of our accumulated scientific and scholarly knowledge, there is understandably a lot of anger and concern about the state and future of the market.

Over the past year, members of the Open Knowledge open science and open access working groups have joined many other advocates and concerned researchers, librarians and citizens in working tirelessly to gather information on the true cost of knowledge. Libraries do not routinely publish financial information at this level of granularity and may be constrained by contractual obligations, so the route chosen to obtain data in the UK has been Freedom of information act (FOI) requests. High profile mathematician and OA advocate Tim Gowers revealed that the cost at Elsevier journals at top universities. Two further rounds of FOI requests by librarian and OKFest attendee Stuart Lawson and Ben Meghreblian have given an even broader overview across five major publishers. This has been released as open data and efforts continue to enrich the dataset. Working group members in Finland and Hong Kong are working to obtain similar information for their countries and further inform open access advocacy and policy globally.

Subscription data only forms part of the industry picture. A data expedition at Oxford Open Science for Open Data Day 2014 tried to look into the business structure of academic publishers using Open Corporates and quickly encountered a high level of complexity so this area requires further work. In terms of APCs and costs to funders, the working groups contributed to a highly successful crowdsourcing effort led by Theo Andrew and Michelle Brook to validate and enrich the Wellcome Trust publication dataset for 2013-2014 with further information on journal type and cost, thus enabling a clearer view of the cost of hybrid journal publications for this particular funder and also illustrating compliance with open access policies.

Mapping open access globally at #OKFestOA.  The session conclusion was that far more data is needed to present a truly global view.

Mapping open access globally at #OKFestOA. The session conclusion was that far more data is needed to present a truly global view.

This work only scratches the surface and anyone who could help in a global effort to uncover the cost of access to scholarly knowledge would be warmly welcomed and supported by those who have now built up experience in obtaining this information. If funders and institutions have datasets they could contribute this would also be a fantastic help.

Please sign up to the wiki page here and join the related discussion forum for support in making requests. We hope by Open Access Week 2015 we’ll be posting a much more informative and comprehensive assessment of the cost of accessing scholarly knowledge!

Footnotes:

[1] A significant proportion of billions of dollars per year (estimated $9.4 billion on scientific journals alone in 2011). See STM report (PDF – 6.3MB).

[2] An open access business model where fees are paid to publishers for the service of publishing an article, which is then free to users.

Photo credits:

Money by 401(K) 2012 under CC-BY-SA 2.0

OKFest OA Map, Jenny Molloy, all copyright and related or neighboring rights waived to the extent possible under law using CC0 1.0 waiver. Published from the United Kingdom.

Library by seier+seier under CC-BY 2.0

Improving openness, transparency and reproducibility in scientific research

Jenny Molloy - October 24, 2014 in Guest post, Reproducibility, research, tools

This is a guest post by Sara Bowman of the Open Science Framework.

Understanding reproducibility in science

Reproducibility is fundamental to the advancement of science. Unless experiments and findings in the literature can be reproduced by others in the field, the improvement of scientific theory is hindered. Scholarly publications disseminate scientific findings, and the process of peer review ensures that methods and findings are scrutinized prior to publication. Yet, recent reports indicate that many published findings cannot be reproduced. Across domains, from organic chemistry ((Trevor Laird, “Editorial Reproducibility of Results” Organic Process Research and Development) to drug discovery (Asher Mullard, “Reliability of New Drug Target Claims Called Into Question” Nature Reviews Drug Development) to psychology (Meyer and Chabris, “Why Psychologists’ Food Fight Matters” Slate), scientists are discovering difficulties in replicating published results.

Various groups have tried to uncover why results are unreliable or what characteristics make studies less reproducible (see John Ioannidis’s “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” PLoS, for example). Still others look for ways to incentivize practices that promote accuracy in scientific publishing (see Nosek, Spies, and Motyl, “Scientific Utopia II: Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability” Perspectives on Psychological Science). In all of these, the underlying theme is the need for transparency surrounding the research process – in order to learn more about what makes research reproducible, we must know more about how the research was conducted and how the analyses were performed. Data, code, and materials sharing can shed light on research design and analysis decisions that lead to reproducibility. Enabling and incentivizing these practices is the goal of The Open Science Framework, a free, open source web application built by the Center for Open Science.

The right tools for the

The Open Science Framework (OSF) helps researchers manage their research workflow and enables data and materials sharing both with collaborators and with the public. The philosophy behind the OSF is to meet researchers where they are, while providing an easy means for opening up their research if it’s desired or the time is right. Any project hosted on the OSF is private to collaborators by default, but making the materials open to the public is accomplished with a simple click of a button.

Here, the project page for the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology demonstrates the many features of the Open Science Framework (OSF). Managing contributors, uploading files, keeping track of progress and providing context on a wiki, and accessing view and download statistics are all available through the project page.

Here, the project page for the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology demonstrates the many features of the Open Science Framework (OSF). Managing contributors, uploading files, keeping track of progress and providing context on a wiki, and accessing view and download statistics are all available through the project page.

Features of the OSF facilitate transparency and good scientific practice with minimal burden on the researcher. The OSF logs all actions by contributors and maintains full version control. Every time a new version of a file is uploaded to the OSF, the previous versions are maintained so that a user can always go back to an old revision. The OSF performs logging and maintains version control without the researcher ever having to think about it – no added steps to the workflow, no extra record-keeping to deal with.

The OSF integrates with other services (e.g., GitHub, Dataverse, and Dropbox) so that researchers continue to use the tools that are practical, helpful, and a part of the workflow, but gain value from the other features the OSF offers. An added benefit is in seeing materials from a variety of services next to each other – code on GitHub and files on Dropbox or AmazonS3 appear next to each other on the OSF – streamlining research and analysis processes and improving workflows.

 Each project, file, and user on the OSF has a persistent URL, making content citable. The project in this screenshot can be found at https://osf.io/tvyxz.

Each project, file, and user on the OSF has a persistent URL, making content citable. The project in this screenshot can be found at https://osf.io/tvyxz.

Other features of the OSF incentivize researchers to open up their data and materials. Each project, file, and user is given a globally unique identifier – making all materials citable and ensuring researchers get credit for their work. Once materials are publicly available, the authors can access statistics detailing the number of views and downloads of their materials, as well as geographic information about viewers. Additionally, the OSF applies the idea of “forks,” commonly used in open source software development, to scientific research. A user can create a fork of another project, to indicate that the new work builds on the forked project or was inspired by the forked project. A fork serves as a functional citation; as the network of forks grows, the interconnectedness of a body of research becomes apparent.

Openness and transparency about the scientific process informs the development of best practices for reproducible research. The OSF seeks both to enable that transparency, by taking care of “behind the scenes” logging and versioning without added burden on the researcher – and to improve overall efficiency for researchers and their daily workflows. By providing tools for researchers to easily adopt more open practices, the Center for Open Science and the OSF seek to improve openness, transparency, and – ultimately – reproducibility in scientific research.

Global Open Data Index 2014 – Week ending October 24: Update

Mor Rubinstein - October 24, 2014 in Open Data Index

Skærmbillede 2014-10-23 kl. 23.41.52

Thank you so much for the amazing number of submissions we have received this week.

Entering the final week of the global sprint!

Next week is the FINAL WEEK of the global Index sprint. Please make sure your country is represented in the Global Open Data Index 2014.

Find out how you can contribute here.

If you would like to be reviewer for Global Open Data Index 2014, please sign up here.

We are missing some countries – can you help?

Europe – Armenia, Croatia, Hungary, Ukraine, Slovenia, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Poland

Americas – Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Brazil, USA

Asia/Pacific – South Korea, Taiwan, India, Mongolia, New Zealand, Australia

Africa – Sierra Leone, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique 

Join the Global Madness Day: October 30

Take part in a day of activities to make sure we get the most submissions through that we can for the Global Open Data Index 2014. Make sure your country is represented – the October 30 Global Madness Day is the last day in the sprint!

At 2pm GMT Rufus Pollock, the President & Founder of Open Knowledge will be chatting to Mor Rubinstein about the Index in a Google Hangout. Make sure you join the chat here!

Other events will take place throughout the day. See our twitter feed for updates #openindex14

Some practical tips…

Lastly, a couple of reminders on some key questions around the Index from Mor Rubinstein, Community coordinator for the Index:

1. What is machine readable? – This year we added help text for this question. Please read it when making your submissions this year. Frequently contributors categorise HTML format as a machine readable format. While it is easy to scrape HTML, it is actually NOT a machine readable format. Please use our guide if you are in doubt or send an email to the census list.

2. What is Openly Licensed? – Well, most of us are not lawyers, and the majority of us never pay attention to the term and conditions on a website (well, they are super long… so I can’t blame any of you for that). If you are confused, go to the Open definition which gives a one page overview on the subject.

Open Access and the humanities: on our travels round the UK

Guest - October 23, 2014 in Open Access, Open Access Week

This post is part of our Open Access Week blog series to highlight great work in Open Access communities around the world. It is written by Alma Swan, Director of Key Perspectives Ltd, Director of Advocacy forSPARC Europe, and Convenor for Enabling Open Scholarship.

Digital Camera

Whither the humanities in a world moving inexorably to open values in research? There has been much discussion and debate on this issue of late. It has tended to focus on two matters – the sustainability of humanities journals and the problem(s) of the monograph. Neither of these things is a novel topic for consideration or discussion, but nor have solutions been found that are satisfactory to all the key stakeholders, so the debate goes on.

While it does, some significant developments have been happening, not behind the scenes as such but in a quiet way nevertheless. New publishers are emerging in the humanities that are offering different ways of doing things and demonstrating that Open Access and the humanities are not mutually exclusive.

These publishers are scholar-led or are academy-based (university presses or similar). Their mission is to offer dissemination channels that are Open, viable and sustainable. They don’t frighten the horses in terms of trying to change too much, too fast: they have left the traditional models of peer review practice and the traditional shape and form of outputs in place. But they are quietly and competently providing Open Access to humanities research. What’s more, they understand the concerns, fears and some bewilderment of humanities scholars trying to sort out what the imperative for Open Access means to them and how to go about playing their part. They understand because they are of and from the humanities community themselves.

The debate about OA within this community has been particularly vociferous in the UK in the wake of the contentious Finch Report and the policy of the UK’s Research Councils. Fortuitously, the UK is blessed with some great innovators in the humanities, and many of the new publishing operations are also UK-based. This offers a great opportunity to show off these some new initiatives and help to reassure UK humanities authors at the same time. So SPARC Europe, with funding support from the Open Society Foundations, is now endeavouring to bring these new publishers together with members of the UK’s humanities community.

We are hosting a Roadshow comprising six separate events in different cities round England and Scotland. At each event there are short presentations by representatives of the new publishers and from a humanities scholar who can give the research practitioner perspective on Open Access. After the presentations, the publishers are available in a small exhibition area to display their publications and talk about their publishing programmes, their business models and their plans for the future.

The publishers taking part in the Roadshow are Open Book Publishers, Open Library of the Humanities, Open Humanities Press and Ubiquity Press. In addition, the two innovative initiatives OAPEN and Knowledge Unlatched are also participating. The stories from these organisations are interesting and compelling, and present a new vision of the future of publishing in the humanities.

Humanities scholars from all higher education institutions in the locality of each event are warmly invited to come along to the local Roadshow session. The cities we are visiting are Leeds, Manchester, London, Coventry, Glasgow and St Andrews. The full programme is available here.

We will assess the impact of these events and may send the Roadshow out again to new venues next year if they prove to be successful. If you cannot attend but would like further information on the publishing programmes described here, or would like to suggest other venues the Roadshow might visit, please contact me at sparceurope@arl.org