DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of Research: Assessing the Impact of Plan S the LEUVEN INSTITUTE for IRELAND in EUROPE, LEUVEN, BELGIUM 6TH NOVEMBER 2019 #Impactplans Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of Research: Assessing the Impact of Plan S the LEUVEN INSTITUTE for IRELAND in EUROPE, LEUVEN, BELGIUM 6TH NOVEMBER 2019 #Impactplans Introduction PROMOTING RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FOR POLICY AND PROGRESS POST-EVENT REPORT The future of research: Assessing the impact of Plan S THE LEUVEN INSTITUTE FOR IRELAND IN EUROPE, LEUVEN, BELGIUM 6TH NOVEMBER 2019 #ImpactPlanS Introduction Professor Theo D’haen MAE chairing the symposium Join the discussion “I was delighted to chair the international on Twitter: symposium, The future of research: Assessing the #ImpactPlanS impact of Plan S, and to welcome an audience of around 130 to the historic Leuven Institute for Ireland in Europe. We are particularly grateful to KU Leuven Libraries for their extensive support. This report is a summary of the presentations and discussions that took place at the symposium. I hope you find it both interesting and informative. If this report interests you, look out for Academia Europaea’s next conference on Plan S, scheduled for 2021 and organised by the HERCulES (Higher Education, Research and Culture in European Societies) Group.” THE ACADEMY OF EUROPE Professor Theo D’haen MAE We are grateful to the Professor Emeritus, KU Leuven Academia Europaea for Editor, European Review generously supporting this event through the 2019 Hubert Curien Initiative Fund. www.ae-info.org 2 Summary An international symposium on the impact of Plan S, organised by the AE Cardiff Knowledge Hub with KU Leuven Libraries, took place at KU Leuven on 6th November 2019. The symposium’s keynote address was given by Professor Johan Rooryck MAE, the newly appointed Open Access Champion. The rest of the symposium was dedicated to assessing the impact of Plan S on a range of stakeholders, including early-career researchers, research-intensive institutions, scholarly societies and publishers. The event concluded with a look at the future prospects for Open Access publishing and Plan S. This report gives a summary of each of the sessions. For further detail, the event programme and slides are available at: http://aecardiffknowledgehub.wales/2019/11/14/impact-plan-s Panellists and organisers of The future of research: Assessing the impact of Plan S 3 Professor Johan Rooryck MAE, Open Access Champion, cOAlition S, delivering Professor Sierd Cloetingh MAE, President the keynote of Academia Europaea, Hilde van Kiel, Director of KU Leuven Libraries, Professor Luc Sels, Rector of KU Leuven, and Professor Theo D’haen MAE, Chair of the symposium welcoming delegates to the evening reception at the historic University Library. The reception was kindly hosted by KU Leuven Libraries A member of the audience contributing to the debate University Library, venue for the evening reception 4 Introductory remarks from the opening session Plan S is a topic close to the heart of the Academia Europaea. We are a pan-European academy of around 4,000 members, acting as the voice of science, freedom of expression and the sharing of knowledge. Our affiliates are the Young Academy of Europe, representing the future of science. This Plan S symposium is very timely, given the fast pace of change and the complexity of the issue.” Professor Sierd Cloetingh MAE President, Academia Europaea Change is happening quickly. The Young Academy of Europe is a dynamic and innovative group of top European young scientists, with outspoken views about science and science policy. Young academies need to make their voices heard, not least on Open Research and Plan S.” Dr Mangala Srinivas FYAE Chair, Young Academy of Europe 5 Keynote address Professor Johan Rooryck MAE, Membership of cOAlition S Open Access Champion, cOAlition S Why is Plan S necessary? Firstly, it accelerates science and citizen science, by making research results available as quickly Plan S: From principles to implementation as possible. Secondly, research funders get more return on their investment in research, through a transparent and Back in the 1970s, researchers routinely went to the library to effective transition to full Open Access. Thirdly, researchers use traditional card indexes. Now, such indexes are obsolete, can expect far greater visibility of their work if they publish and the same principle should apply to journal subscriptions. through Open Access. Research results are a public good They serve no purpose. and should carry an open licence, such as Creative Commons cOAlition S, a consortium of research funders, was founded CC-BY. Plan S does not permit paywalls or embargo periods. in Europe. We are now developing a global presence, seeking Under Plan S, funders pay for authors to publish their more funders across Europe and worldwide. Concurrently, we work, as a normal part of doing science. We also have a are coordinating our actions with those of other players in commitment to assess research outputs based on DORA (San Open Access, such as OA2020 and COAR (Confederation of Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment) principles, Open Access Repositories). not on impact factor or other similar quantitative metrics. The implementation period for Plan S is now a little longer “Journal subscriptions than envisaged, as we have extended the timeline by one year. Publications from funding calls issued from 1st January serve no purpose.” 2021 must be Open Access. Transformative arrangements will Professor Johan be supported to the end of 2024. There are several possible Rooryck MAE, Open Access routes to Plan S compliance: Champion 1. The author publishes in a full Open Access journal. 2. The author publishes in a subscription journal but concurrently also in an Open Access repository. 3. The author publishes in a subscription journal that is under a transformative arrangement. There are three possible transformative strategies to get to Plan S: 1. Transformative agreements are library consortia contracts with publishers to convert subscription deals to Open Access. There are already examples in several countries, such as Germany and Holland. Agreements must be transparent; they should be at least cost-neutral initially and they should save money in the long run. 2. Transformative model agreements with scholarly societies. Under these agreements, libraries continue to support learned society journals. Libraries pay the same costs as before for these journals, but in return for Open Access. The Society of Microbiology is an example in the UK, where a deal has been struck with the national consortium Jisc to support the Society’s six journals. 3. Transformative journals. Under these arrangements, the share of Open Access publishing should increase as the level of subscriptions decreases. Publishers must commit to a full transition within an agreed timeframe. 6 At the same time, we acknowledge that there are • With libraries. Libraries can play a key role because still challenges: they hold subscription budgets and can negotiate new agreements. Libraries can help in a number of ways, such as 1. The cost of investment in the transition and in the working with learned societies, managing journals and new capacity of the main players. it includes the capacity platforms. They can also help researchers with setting up of libraries and societies to negotiate and work with and managing new journals. the changes; addressing gaps in publishing options for authors; and providing information and support. • With universities. There have been statements of support from pan-European organisations, such as the European 2. The need for further alignment of funder and Universities Association (EUA) and the League of European institutional policies. Research Universities (LERU). 3. The transfer of costs from readers to producers, and to research-intensive universities and countries. A new cost • With other Open Access players. There has been support model is likely to be required in the future. and statements from initiatives such as OA2020 and the African Open Science Platform. 4. The need to address the range of different models, along with challenges in specific disciplines, Future activities of cOAlition S focus on transparent pricing geographical regions etc. and in defining services for the Open Access fee. We are 5. The requirement for increased coordination across working with the consultancy Information Power to provide countries, consortia, disciplines, funders and institutions. a suitable framework, with a set of service ‘baskets’, as it is important to understand true detailed costs and pricing On a positive note, there are examples of good collaboration across different disciplines. with stakeholders: A new governance structure is being established for Plan S. • With researcher groups. cOAlition S is working with the There is an executive steering group and a leaders’ group, Global Young Academy and others to develop indicators to supported by a Plan S office set up with the European Science measure the impact of Plan S on early-career researchers. Foundation and due to open early in 2020. cOAlition S has also established an ambassadors’ network to engage with the research community. In conclusion, Plan S is part of a wider Open Science movement to make full and immediate Open Access a reality. • With publishers. cOAlition S is in discussion with publishers We need to build a global coalition of funders, supported regarding the transformative journal model and learned by institutions, researchers and publishers. We are all society publishing. Some publishers are already supportive in this together. of the ‘green’ model, making them fully Plan S compliant. • With learned societies. A consultancy, Information Power, has produced a report and toolkit (Wise & Estelle, 2019). “We are all in As described above, we have a transformative model for this together.” societies. Professor Johan Rooryck MAE addressing the audience 7 Discussion Q: Surely transformative agreements Q: Is this not a European project for will be in the countries with the European problems? How can we Q: Is Plan S an example of evolution power to make such agreements? learn from others, for example, in or disruption in publishing? Other countries do not have such South America? A: Open Access is a disruptive research power, particularly in A: We have looked at South American enabler.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plan S in Latin America: a Precautionary Note
    Plan S in Latin America: A precautionary note Humberto Debat1 & Dominique Babini2 1Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (IPAVE-CIAP-INTA), Argentina, ORCID id: 0000-0003-3056-3739, [email protected] 2Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO), Argentina. ORCID id: 0000-0002- 5752-7060, [email protected] Latin America has historically led a firm and rising Open Access movement and represents the worldwide region with larger adoption of Open Access practices. Argentina has recently expressed its commitment to join Plan S, an initiative from a European consortium of research funders oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of scientific outputs. Here we suggest that the potential adhesion of Argentina or other Latin American nations to Plan S, even in its recently revised version, ignores the reality and tradition of Latin American Open Access publishing, and has still to demonstrate that it will encourage at a regional and global level the advancement of non-commercial Open Access initiatives. Plan S is an initiative from a European consortium of research funders, with the intention of becoming international, oriented to mandate Open Access publishing of research outputs funded by public or private grants, starting from 2021. Launched in September 2018 and revised in May 2019, the plan supported by the so-called cOAlition S involves 10 principles directed to achieve scholarly publishing in “Open Access Journals, Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo” [1]. cOAlition S, coordinated by Science Europe and comprising 16 national research funders, three charitable foundations and the European Research Council, has pledged to coordinately implement the 10 principles of Plan S in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Scientific Input to Global Policymaking
    the interacademy partnership Report with a focus on the to Global Policymaking UN Sustainable Development Goals Improving Scientific Input INTERACADEMY PARTNERSHIP IMPROVING SCIENTIFIC INPUT TO GLOBAL POLICYMAKING MAY 2019 May 2019 the interacademy partnership Available for free download at: for free Available www.interacademies.org/50429/SDGs_Report Improving Scientific Input to Global Policymaking with a focus on the UN Sustainable Development Goals Report May 2019 The shaded countries in the cover image indicate where IAP member academies exist. ISBN 978-1-7330379-0-7 © Copyright The InterAcademy Partnership, 2019 A summary report is also available: IBSN 978-1-7330379-1-4 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 4: Exploring routes for applying science to the SDGs (cont’d) Working Group Members and Secretariat .................................................................................... 5 Engaging with the STC Major Group .......................................................................................38 Participating in the UN STI Multistakeholder Fora ....................................................................38 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 7 Expert Group Meetings on STI-for-SDGs roadmapping ............................................................ 40 How you can support the implementation
    [Show full text]
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • March 13, 2019 AMS Primer on Open Access
    Robert M. Harington Associate Executive Director, Publishing Publishing Division [email protected] 401.455.4165 401.331.3842 www.ams.org AMS Primer on Open Access Introduction Open access (OA) refers to published scholarly content (such as journal research articles, and books) made openly available in online digital form. This content is free of charge at point of use, free of most copyright and licensing restrictions, and free of technical or other barriers to access (such as digital rights management or requirements to register to access). Communicating and sharing discoveries is an essential part of the research process. Any author of a research paper wants it to be read, and the fewer restrictions placed on access to those papers means that more people may benefit from the research. In many ways, the OA movement is very much in line with the shared mission of researchers, scholarly societies, and publishers. Journal publishing programs perform many services for researchers including peer review, communication, and career advancement. In society publishing programs, revenue from journal publishing directly supports the important work societies do on behalf of their scholarly communities. How do we maximize the dissemination of knowledge while at the same time maintaining both a high level of quality and a sustainable financial future for our professional society, the AMS? The OA movement can be traced to a letter from the year 2000, signed by around 34,000 researchers, demanding publishers make all content free after 6 months. The signatories of the letter said they would boycott any journals refusing to comply. In 2002, the accepted definition of OA was encapsulated in the Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Science Recommendations for Food & Agriculture
    DIGITAL SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOOD & AGRICULTURE Edited by February 2020 Table of Contents FOREWORD 3 TOWARDS A DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM FOR SCIENCE 6 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM AGINFRAplus PARTNERS 9 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM EU STAKEHOLDERS 17 POSITION STATEMENTS FROM INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS 28 2 FOREWORD I joined FAO1 (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) in 1998 and got the responsibility for the AGRIS system2. AGRIS was one of the huge bibliograph- ical databases of the time which collected information about scientific and tech- nical publications in agriculture and made them available especially to partners in developing countries. AGRIS already had the two elements about which most of the contributions to this publication are speaking. Community and Technol- ogy. AGRIS centers were holding annual meetings at FAO to coordinate their efforts to cover all publications in their area. The AGRIS secretariat initiated the development of specific software which should help them to accomplish this task. CDS-ISIS3 was developed already in the early 90s. In a way, FAO had a pioneering role in creating collaboration between scientific institutions. WUR and INRA, two contributors to this volume were very important centers of the AGRIS network. Nearly all of the contributions in this volume emphasize the human factor and the necessity of community building before the technological aspects. This is understandable. Technological questions are straightforward (normally) and resolvable (theoretically). For com- munity building there exists something similar as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. DeltaS>=0. Entropy (non collaboration) in a closed system can only grow. Collaboration is not a given. Every unit has its own business model and even every single person pursues specific goals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plan S Footprint
    ISI visual language/comms: report 44 The Plan S footprint: ISI Report Implications for the ISI Report Global Reserach Report – Global Reserach Report – Profiles notscholarly metrics publishing Profiles not metrics Pudipsus commolumlandscape ihitor boribus as sum Pudipsus commolum ihitor boribus as sum tem dolupta temporepe latur mini volo. tem dolupta temporepe latur mini volo. Nandita Quaderi, James Hardcastle, Christos Petrou and Martin Szomszor March 2019 Contents 4 15 Summary How does Plan S affect publishers? 5 Papers funded 18 by Plan S organisations What could change under Plan S? 8 How does Plan S affect 21 research areas? Responsibility for costs 11 22 How frequently are Tasks for a system Plan S papers cited? in transition 12 24 How does Plan S affect Annex – Data Sources countries and regions? 2 Dr Nandita Quaderi is Editor-in-Chief of James Hardcastle is a Senior Business Web of Science at the Institute for Scientific Analyst at Web of Science Group. Prior to Information, responsible for the editorial this he was Head of Business Development selection of content indexed in the Web for wisdom.ai, and the Senior Manager for of Science. Prior to joining the Web of Product Analytics at Taylor & Francis. Science Group, Dr Quaderi was Publishing Christos Petrou is Head of Strategic Director of Open Research at Springer Analytics at the Web of Science Group. Nature where she had responsibility for the Previously, he was Director of Strategic portfolio of open access Nature Research Analytics at the Open Research Group journals. Before joining the STM publishing of Springer Nature. He has worked as a sector she was a EU-funded Marie Curie management consultant at A.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Confronting Gender Bias in Nature's Journalism
    The international journal of science / 24 June 2021 independently to design and conduct the study. The duo found one exception to the main finding on Confronting gender gender bias — in Nature’s Careers features articles. Quotes from men and women appear in equal numbers in this bias in Nature’s section, which comprises reporting from journalists on different aspects of research careers. journalism The study does not assess all of Nature’s non-primary- research output; for example, content written by invited expert authors is not included. This category of content An external analysis of 15 years of stories tends not to directly quote other individuals. finds men quoted more than twice as often But over the past five years, Nature has started collect- as women. ing data on gender diversity among the authors of such commissioned content. For example, last year, women comprised 58% of authors in Nature’s World View column consistent finding of researchers studying the — up from 35% in 2017, and from 18% in 2016. And, in 2020, news media is that women are quoted much women accounted for 34% of authors of News and Views less often than men. The Gender Gap Tracker articles — which explain and analyse new research — com- (GGT), an automated system created by a team pared with 26% in 2017 and 12% in 2012. Another example at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada, of journalism is our photo-essay section, Where I Work, Ahas tracked seven Canadian news sites since October 2018 which profiles researchers in places where they study. This and found that 71% of interviewees quoted in articles were has featured 56% female scientists since its introduction men (F.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting People and Ideas from Around the World: Global Innovation
    INNOVATIVE VIEWPOINT Connecting people and ideas from around the world: global innovation platforms for next-generation ecology and beyond 1,2,3,22, 1,4 1,5 1,6 PETER SØGAARD JØRGENSEN, FREDERIC BARRAQUAND, VINCENT BONHOMME, TIMOTHY J. CURRAN, 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,10 ELLEN CIERAAD, THOMAS G. EZARD, LAUREANO A. GHERARDI, R. ANDREW HAYES, 1,11,12 1,13,14 1,15 1,16,17 TIMOTHE´ E POISOT, ROBERTO SALGUERO-GO´ MEZ, LUCI´A DESOTO, BRIAN SWARTZ, 1,18,19 1,20 1,18,21 JENNIFER M. TALBOT, BRIAN WEE, AND NAUPAKA ZIMMERMAN 1International Network of Next-Generation Ecologists, http://innge.net 2Center for Macroecology Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen DK-2100 Denmark 3Sustainability Science Centre, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, Copenhagen DK-2100 Denmark 4Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, University of Tromsø, Norway 5French Institute of Pondicherry, 11 Saint Louis Street, Pondicherry 605 001 France 6Department of Ecology, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647 New Zealand 7Landcare Research, Lincoln 7640 New Zealand. 8Centre for Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Life Sciences Building 85, Highfield Campus, Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom 9School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287 USA 10Horticulture and Forestry Science, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Brisbane QLD 4001 Australia 11De´partement de sciences biologiques, Universite´ de Montre´al, Pavillon Marie-Victorin, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montre´al, Que´bec H3C 3J7 Canada 12Que´bec Centre for Biodiversity Sciences, McGill University, Montre´al, Quebec, Canada 13School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland QLD 4072 Australia 14Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.
    [Show full text]
  • SUBMISSION from SPRINGER NATURE Making Plan S Successful
    PLAN S IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE: SUBMISSION FROM SPRINGER NATURE Springer Nature welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the cOAlition S Implementation Guidance and contribute to the discussion on how the transition to Open Access (OA) can be accelerated. Our submission below focuses mainly on the second question posed in the consultation: Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs? Making Plan S successful: a commitment to open access Springer Nature is dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing and Open Research techniques. As the world’s largest OA publisher we are a committed partner for cOAlition S funders in achieving this goal which is also the primary focus of Plan S. Our recommendations below are therefore presented with the aim of achieving this goal. As a first mover, we know the (multiple) challenges that need to be overcome: funding flows that need to change, a lack of cooperation in funder policies, a lack of global coordination, the need for a cultural change in researcher assessment and metrics in research, academic disciplines that lack OA resources, geographic differences in levels of research output making global “Publish and Read” deals difficult and, critically, an author community that does not yet view publishing OA as a priority. While this uncertainty remains, we need the benefits of OA to be better described and promoted as well as support for the ways that enable us and other publishers to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. We therefore propose cOAlition S adopt the following six recommendations which we believe are necessary to deliver Plan S’s primary goal of accelerating the take-up of OA globally while minimising costs to funders and other stakeholders: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll?
    Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll? David W. Lewis Dean Emeritus, IUPUI University Library [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9711-5565 August 2019 © 2019 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Abstract This article uses Alan B. Krueger’s analysis of the music industry in his book Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life as a lens to consider the structure of scholarly publishing and what could happen to scholarly publishing going forward. Both the music industry and scholarly publishing are facing disruption as their products become digital. Digital content provides opportunities to a create a better product at lower prices and in the music industry this has happened. Scholarly publishing has not yet done so. Similarities and differences between the music industry and scholarly publishing will be considered. Like music, scholarly publishing appears to be a superstar industry. Both music and scholarly publishing are subject to piracy, which threatens revenue, though Napster was a greater disrupter than Sci-Hub seems to be. It also appears that for a variety of reasons market forces are not effective in driving changes in business models and practices in scholarly publishing, at least not at the rate we would expect given the changes in technology. After reviewing similarities and differences, the prospects for the future of scholarly publishing will be considered. David W. Lewis — Is Scholarly Publishing Like Rock and Roll? 1 Introduction In his 2019 book, Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us About Economics and Life, Alan B.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Yearly Report
    2019 Videos of the GYA Humans of the GYA Alumni of the Month Working Group videos "Who we are and what we do" Explainer videos Member Lightning Talks 2 2019 Please refer to this document as follows: Global Young Academy. 2020. GYA Yearly Report 2019. Halle (Saale), Germany: German National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina. GYA in 2019 The GYA celebrated a series of milestones 2019. The declaration sets out guidelines in 2019, chief among which was turning for the running of NYAs that the signatories 10 years old. As part of evaluating our agreed to uphold, but which would also act as accomplishments over those 10 years, our guidance to future NYAs. core funder, the German Government, asked for a thorough evaluation. This was carried Another major milestone was a move in 2019 out by an independently-appointed team to explore extending the Global State of Young of international reviewers, and to help with Scientists (GloSYS) project beyond the African this evaluation the GYA Co-Chairs and Office region and setting up a similar regional study released a self-evaluation report in April 2019. in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) This report is available here, and describes region. This marked another important step in our activities against the benchmarks set by the eight-year history of the GloSYS umbrella our Strategic Plan 2016–2020. During the project, and reinforces the GYA’s commitment same period, the GYA took the opportunity to giving a voice to young researchers across to carry out an internal Impact Assessment the globe. The GloSYS projects are designed (Report and Technical Appendix available to provide insights into the factors affecting here & here).
    [Show full text]
  • FAO Statistical Programme of Work 2012/2013
    FAO STATISTICAL PROGRAMME OF WORK 2012/13 1 Table of contents PART I ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 12 II. STRUCTURE OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE FAO STATISTICAL PROGRAMME OF WORK IN 2012-13 .................. 16 III. SUMMARY OF FAO STATISTICAL ACTIVITIES BY DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS ................................................ 17 Inter-departmental statistical activities ................................................................................................................... 18 Agriculture and consumer protection department (AG).......................................................................................... 18 Information Technology Division (CIO) ................................................................................................................. 19 Economic and social development department (ES) ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]